Thousands are expected at Boxing Day hunts

DOZENS of riders and hounds will be out in Oxfordshire for traditional Boxing Day hunts.

Despite fox hunting being banned seven years ago, Oxfordshire hunts say thousands will come out to support them.

Following the ban the hunts have to stay within the law by following artificially-laid trails.

Bicester and Whaddon Chase Hound Club will meet at 11am in the field opposite Winslow Hall, east of Bicester, at 11am.

Patrick Martin, of the hound club which has its kennels in Stratton Audley, near Bicester, said up to 60 riders and 35 hounds could take part. He said: “People come because they believe in the traditions of this country and are more than happy to support their local hunt.”

Related links

Promoted Stories

Comments (32)

Disgusting....I hope the foxes get away and that the hunt is a disaster, may all the riders land in ditches. I hope the hounds go on strike and the horses buck all the riders off.......

Disgusting....I hope the foxes get away and that the hunt is a disaster, may all the riders land in ditches. I hope the hounds go on strike and the horses buck all the riders off.......carli

Disgusting....I hope the foxes get away and that the hunt is a disaster, may all the riders land in ditches. I hope the hounds go on strike and the horses buck all the riders off.......

Score: 0

Cathena says...9:18am Mon 24 Dec 12

and I hope the foxes get your hens, kittens and come in and bite your children let alone strew your rubbish all over the road.

and I hope the foxes get your hens, kittens and come in and bite your children let alone strew your rubbish all over the road.Cathena

and I hope the foxes get your hens, kittens and come in and bite your children let alone strew your rubbish all over the road.

Score: 0

Bob 1900 says...9:29am Mon 24 Dec 12

Very simple-shoot the fox as vermin and then drag its carcass around the countryside laying the scent for the hounds-lunch for the hounds and all within the law-simple!

Very simple-shoot the fox as vermin and then drag its carcass around the countryside laying the scent for the hounds-lunch for the hounds and all within the law-simple!Bob 1900

Very simple-shoot the fox as vermin and then drag its carcass around the countryside laying the scent for the hounds-lunch for the hounds and all within the law-simple!

Score: 0

Speckled Hen says...10:43am Mon 24 Dec 12

Well, shame on the Oxford Mail for promoting Boxing Day hunts, especially in the light of the recent conviction of the Heythrop intentionally hunting foxes. Despite what hunters say, the vast majority of people in this country both in the towns and in the countryside despise the hunt. Monitors observe foxes running from local hunts every time they go out and they believe that hunts are blatantly breaking the law as they swore they would when they signed, in their thousands, their much publicized Declaration to do just that. Anyone who wishes to see the evidence that convicted the Heythrop can now find it on You Tube, together with numerous other films showing the hostility, obstruction, abuse and downright aggression which hunts inflict on the monitors, who are massively outnumbered at every hunt. You may ask yourself why hunts are so aggressive to monitors if they are, as they claim, hunting within the law.

Well, shame on the Oxford Mail for promoting Boxing Day hunts, especially in the light of the recent conviction of the Heythrop intentionally hunting foxes.
Despite what hunters say, the vast majority of people in this country both in the towns and in the countryside despise the hunt.
Monitors observe foxes running from local hunts every time they go out and they believe that hunts are blatantly breaking the law as they swore they would when they signed, in their thousands, their much publicized Declaration to do just that.
Anyone who wishes to see the evidence that convicted the Heythrop can now find it on You Tube, together with numerous other films showing the hostility, obstruction, abuse and downright aggression which hunts inflict on the monitors, who are massively outnumbered at every hunt.
You may ask yourself why hunts are so aggressive to monitors if they are, as they claim, hunting within the law.Speckled Hen

Well, shame on the Oxford Mail for promoting Boxing Day hunts, especially in the light of the recent conviction of the Heythrop intentionally hunting foxes. Despite what hunters say, the vast majority of people in this country both in the towns and in the countryside despise the hunt. Monitors observe foxes running from local hunts every time they go out and they believe that hunts are blatantly breaking the law as they swore they would when they signed, in their thousands, their much publicized Declaration to do just that. Anyone who wishes to see the evidence that convicted the Heythrop can now find it on You Tube, together with numerous other films showing the hostility, obstruction, abuse and downright aggression which hunts inflict on the monitors, who are massively outnumbered at every hunt. You may ask yourself why hunts are so aggressive to monitors if they are, as they claim, hunting within the law.

Score: 0

Sugarandcandy says...12:45pm Mon 24 Dec 12

Cathena wrote…

and I hope the foxes get your hens, kittens and come in and bite your children let alone strew your rubbish all over the road.

I worked on a farm in a rural location for 3 years. We had ducks, chickens, rabbits etc. We never ever had a problem with foxes attacking any of our animals as we kept them very secure in proper hutches and cages. We know the area was full of foxes as they were often spotted in the next field! If you keep your animals secure then you should have no trouble. It's just another excuse to take part in this archaic tradition. I think it's disgusting that, despite blatently breaking the law like common criminals, the Heythrop hunt continue to parade around like they own the place. I understand that the fox population may need to be controlled what I don't understand is how anyone can believe they have the right to torture and murder an animal in such a cruel and undignified way.

[quote][p][bold]Cathena[/bold] wrote:
and I hope the foxes get your hens, kittens and come in and bite your children let alone strew your rubbish all over the road.[/p][/quote]I worked on a farm in a rural location for 3 years. We had ducks, chickens, rabbits etc. We never ever had a problem with foxes attacking any of our animals as we kept them very secure in proper hutches and cages. We know the area was full of foxes as they were often spotted in the next field! If you keep your animals secure then you should have no trouble. It's just another excuse to take part in this archaic tradition. I think it's disgusting that, despite blatently breaking the law like common criminals, the Heythrop hunt continue to parade around like they own the place. I understand that the fox population may need to be controlled what I don't understand is how anyone can believe they have the right to torture and murder an animal in such a cruel and undignified way.Sugarandcandy

Cathena wrote…

and I hope the foxes get your hens, kittens and come in and bite your children let alone strew your rubbish all over the road.

I worked on a farm in a rural location for 3 years. We had ducks, chickens, rabbits etc. We never ever had a problem with foxes attacking any of our animals as we kept them very secure in proper hutches and cages. We know the area was full of foxes as they were often spotted in the next field! If you keep your animals secure then you should have no trouble. It's just another excuse to take part in this archaic tradition. I think it's disgusting that, despite blatently breaking the law like common criminals, the Heythrop hunt continue to parade around like they own the place. I understand that the fox population may need to be controlled what I don't understand is how anyone can believe they have the right to torture and murder an animal in such a cruel and undignified way.

Score: 0

Speckled Hen says...1:10pm Mon 24 Dec 12

Quite right Sugarandcandy. Though did you know that most hunts build artificial dens and provide a ready supply food near by to encourage foxes to breed, thus ensuring a ready suppy for their discusting 'sport' ? There is much evidence of this activity since the ban! See League Against Cruel Sports report on their web site

Quite right Sugarandcandy. Though did you know that most hunts build artificial dens and provide a ready supply food near by to encourage foxes to breed, thus ensuring a ready suppy for their discusting 'sport' ? There is much evidence of this activity since the ban! See League Against Cruel Sports report on their web siteSpeckled Hen

Quite right Sugarandcandy. Though did you know that most hunts build artificial dens and provide a ready supply food near by to encourage foxes to breed, thus ensuring a ready suppy for their discusting 'sport' ? There is much evidence of this activity since the ban! See League Against Cruel Sports report on their web site

Score: 0

museli says...3:32pm Mon 24 Dec 12

Yes shame on the Oxford Mail for promoting criminal behaviour - the editor must know as well as the rest of us that these hunts have no intention of abiding by the law.

Yes shame on the Oxford Mail for promoting criminal behaviour - the editor must know as well as the rest of us that these hunts have no intention of abiding by the law.museli

Yes shame on the Oxford Mail for promoting criminal behaviour - the editor must know as well as the rest of us that these hunts have no intention of abiding by the law.

Score: 0

Spike25 says...5:07pm Mon 24 Dec 12

I'll certainly be going to add my support - to the caring and compassionate people who want these bloodthirsty lawbreakers dealing with with the full force of the law.

I'll certainly be going to add my support - to the caring and compassionate people who want these bloodthirsty lawbreakers dealing with with the full force of the law.Spike25

I'll certainly be going to add my support - to the caring and compassionate people who want these bloodthirsty lawbreakers dealing with with the full force of the law.

Score: 0

Bob 1900 says...6:54pm Mon 24 Dec 12

Any credence the RSPCA had has certainly flown out of the window, financing a court case with charitible money-they should be held to account and their charitible status revoked-A discrace indeed. All for a couple of maingey foxes.

Any credence the RSPCA had has certainly flown out of the window, financing a court case with charitible money-they should be held to account and their charitible status revoked-A discrace indeed. All for a couple of maingey foxes.Bob 1900

Any credence the RSPCA had has certainly flown out of the window, financing a court case with charitible money-they should be held to account and their charitible status revoked-A discrace indeed. All for a couple of maingey foxes.

Score: 0

museli says...7:13pm Mon 24 Dec 12

Bob 1900 wrote…

Any credence the RSPCA had has certainly flown out of the window, financing a court case with charitible money-they should be held to account and their charitible status revoked-A discrace indeed. All for a couple of maingey foxes.

The RSPCA claims to have secured 3,114 prosecution by private prosecution last year. It's what they do, what they've always done, what they were set up to do back in the 1820s. Perhaps you've only just become aware of this because they've been brave enough to tread on the toes of a few criminal vested interests who are now throwing mud around.

[quote][p][bold]Bob 1900[/bold] wrote:
Any credence the RSPCA had has certainly flown out of the window, financing a court case with charitible money-they should be held to account and their charitible status revoked-A discrace indeed. All for a couple of maingey foxes.[/p][/quote]The RSPCA claims to have secured 3,114 prosecution by private prosecution last year. It's what they do, what they've always done, what they were set up to do back in the 1820s. Perhaps you've only just become aware of this because they've been brave enough to tread on the toes of a few criminal vested interests who are now throwing mud around.museli

Bob 1900 wrote…

Any credence the RSPCA had has certainly flown out of the window, financing a court case with charitible money-they should be held to account and their charitible status revoked-A discrace indeed. All for a couple of maingey foxes.

The RSPCA claims to have secured 3,114 prosecution by private prosecution last year. It's what they do, what they've always done, what they were set up to do back in the 1820s. Perhaps you've only just become aware of this because they've been brave enough to tread on the toes of a few criminal vested interests who are now throwing mud around.

Score: 0

museli says...7:13pm Mon 24 Dec 12

sorry that's 'convictions by private prosecution' ....

sorry that's 'convictions by private prosecution' ....museli

sorry that's 'convictions by private prosecution' ....

Score: 0

carli says...9:21am Tue 25 Dec 12

Cathena wrote…

and I hope the foxes get your hens, kittens and come in and bite your children let alone strew your rubbish all over the road.

merry christmas to you too.....

[quote][p][bold]Cathena[/bold] wrote:
and I hope the foxes get your hens, kittens and come in and bite your children let alone strew your rubbish all over the road.[/p][/quote]merry christmas to you too.....carli

Cathena wrote…

and I hope the foxes get your hens, kittens and come in and bite your children let alone strew your rubbish all over the road.

merry christmas to you too.....

Score: 0

xjohnx says...5:38pm Wed 26 Dec 12

I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes. Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes??? More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.

I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes.
Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes???
More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.xjohnx

I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes. Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes??? More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.

Score: 0

Lord Palmerstone says...8:25am Thu 27 Dec 12

museli wrote…

Bob 1900 wrote…

Any credence the RSPCA had has certainly flown out of the window, financing a court case with charitible money-they should be held to account and their charitible status revoked-A discrace indeed. All for a couple of maingey foxes.

The RSPCA claims to have secured 3,114 prosecution by private prosecution last year. It's what they do, what they've always done, what they were set up to do back in the 1820s. Perhaps you've only just become aware of this because they've been brave enough to tread on the toes of a few criminal vested interests who are now throwing mud around.

They tend NOT to have spent north of 200K on each prosecution and their prosecutions have, quite properly, been of people who treat appallingly animals in their care. We both know this and we both know that the Heythrop thing was not "core" business but blatant political grandstanding. So why do you insist on denying the bl**ding obvious?

[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Bob 1900[/bold] wrote:
Any credence the RSPCA had has certainly flown out of the window, financing a court case with charitible money-they should be held to account and their charitible status revoked-A discrace indeed. All for a couple of maingey foxes.[/p][/quote]The RSPCA claims to have secured 3,114 prosecution by private prosecution last year. It's what they do, what they've always done, what they were set up to do back in the 1820s. Perhaps you've only just become aware of this because they've been brave enough to tread on the toes of a few criminal vested interests who are now throwing mud around.[/p][/quote]They tend NOT to have spent north of 200K on each prosecution and their prosecutions have, quite properly, been of people who treat appallingly animals in their care. We both know this and we both know that the Heythrop thing was not "core" business but blatant political grandstanding. So why do you insist on denying the bl**ding obvious?Lord Palmerstone

museli wrote…

Bob 1900 wrote…

Any credence the RSPCA had has certainly flown out of the window, financing a court case with charitible money-they should be held to account and their charitible status revoked-A discrace indeed. All for a couple of maingey foxes.

The RSPCA claims to have secured 3,114 prosecution by private prosecution last year. It's what they do, what they've always done, what they were set up to do back in the 1820s. Perhaps you've only just become aware of this because they've been brave enough to tread on the toes of a few criminal vested interests who are now throwing mud around.

They tend NOT to have spent north of 200K on each prosecution and their prosecutions have, quite properly, been of people who treat appallingly animals in their care. We both know this and we both know that the Heythrop thing was not "core" business but blatant political grandstanding. So why do you insist on denying the bl**ding obvious?

Score: 0

museli says...10:24am Thu 27 Dec 12

Lord Palmerstone wrote…

museli wrote…

Bob 1900 wrote…

Any credence the RSPCA had has certainly flown out of the window, financing a court case with charitible money-they should be held to account and their charitible status revoked-A discrace indeed. All for a couple of maingey foxes.

The RSPCA claims to have secured 3,114 prosecution by private prosecution last year. It's what they do, what they've always done, what they were set up to do back in the 1820s. Perhaps you've only just become aware of this because they've been brave enough to tread on the toes of a few criminal vested interests who are now throwing mud around.

They tend NOT to have spent north of 200K on each prosecution and their prosecutions have, quite properly, been of people who treat appallingly animals in their care. We both know this and we both know that the Heythrop thing was not "core" business but blatant political grandstanding. So why do you insist on denying the bl**ding obvious?

Of course preventing cruelty to foxes is 'core business' for the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - the clues in their name. The prosecution of known criminals for blatantly breaking the law is not 'political grandstanding', someone had to bring Barnfield and his cronies to book and the CPS had mysteriously dropped the case last time they got charged. As those of us who bother to read your regular posts are well aware your Lordship's version of the bleeding obvious is not at all obvious to those of us that don't believe the entire country is under the thumb of some oppressive socialist regime. (Oh why am I bothering to respond to a fundamentalist - I should know better by now!)

[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Bob 1900[/bold] wrote:
Any credence the RSPCA had has certainly flown out of the window, financing a court case with charitible money-they should be held to account and their charitible status revoked-A discrace indeed. All for a couple of maingey foxes.[/p][/quote]The RSPCA claims to have secured 3,114 prosecution by private prosecution last year. It's what they do, what they've always done, what they were set up to do back in the 1820s. Perhaps you've only just become aware of this because they've been brave enough to tread on the toes of a few criminal vested interests who are now throwing mud around.[/p][/quote]They tend NOT to have spent north of 200K on each prosecution and their prosecutions have, quite properly, been of people who treat appallingly animals in their care. We both know this and we both know that the Heythrop thing was not "core" business but blatant political grandstanding. So why do you insist on denying the bl**ding obvious?[/p][/quote]Of course preventing cruelty to foxes is 'core business' for the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - the clues in their name. The prosecution of known criminals for blatantly breaking the law is not 'political grandstanding', someone had to bring Barnfield and his cronies to book and the CPS had mysteriously dropped the case last time they got charged. As those of us who bother to read your regular posts are well aware your Lordship's version of the bleeding obvious is not at all obvious to those of us that don't believe the entire country is under the thumb of some oppressive socialist regime.
(Oh why am I bothering to respond to a fundamentalist - I should know better by now!)museli

Lord Palmerstone wrote…

museli wrote…

Bob 1900 wrote…

Any credence the RSPCA had has certainly flown out of the window, financing a court case with charitible money-they should be held to account and their charitible status revoked-A discrace indeed. All for a couple of maingey foxes.

The RSPCA claims to have secured 3,114 prosecution by private prosecution last year. It's what they do, what they've always done, what they were set up to do back in the 1820s. Perhaps you've only just become aware of this because they've been brave enough to tread on the toes of a few criminal vested interests who are now throwing mud around.

They tend NOT to have spent north of 200K on each prosecution and their prosecutions have, quite properly, been of people who treat appallingly animals in their care. We both know this and we both know that the Heythrop thing was not "core" business but blatant political grandstanding. So why do you insist on denying the bl**ding obvious?

Of course preventing cruelty to foxes is 'core business' for the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - the clues in their name. The prosecution of known criminals for blatantly breaking the law is not 'political grandstanding', someone had to bring Barnfield and his cronies to book and the CPS had mysteriously dropped the case last time they got charged. As those of us who bother to read your regular posts are well aware your Lordship's version of the bleeding obvious is not at all obvious to those of us that don't believe the entire country is under the thumb of some oppressive socialist regime. (Oh why am I bothering to respond to a fundamentalist - I should know better by now!)

Score: 0

Bartsimpson_uk says...11:38am Thu 27 Dec 12

You all seem to forget,,,,,they BROKE the law and should be prosecuted, if not would you like to share what other laws people can break???

You all seem to forget,,,,,they BROKE the law and should be prosecuted, if not would you like to share what other laws people can break???Bartsimpson_uk

You all seem to forget,,,,,they BROKE the law and should be prosecuted, if not would you like to share what other laws people can break???

Score: 0

Lord Palmerstone says...4:38pm Thu 27 Dec 12

Bartsimpson_uk wrote…

You all seem to forget,,,,,they BROKE the law and should be prosecuted, if not would you like to share what other laws people can break???

The Abortion Act 1967, as amended. Next? The pass laws. The laws in occupied countries 1939-1945. Bart, most of us are capable of recognising the difference between Blair's cheap political show and laws. I'm sure you can too. Oh and Museli-the point is that they spent £300,000 on this prosecution, which is a disproportionate sum, and all the personal abuse doesn't obscure that point .Apologists like you are not going to be able to justify spending all that cash. The cash was not given by decent donors for this purpose, as you know. And if you think that, for example, starving puppies in a dark shed (RSPCA core business) is so much more trivial than chasing a bloomin' fox that the RSPCA should only spend 2% of the sum of money prosecuting such a case than on prosecuting to embarrass Cameron, then frankly you're barking-see I can do personal abuse as well, and it's as fatuous as your personal abuse.

[quote][p][bold]Bartsimpson_uk[/bold] wrote:
You all seem to forget,,,,,they BROKE the law and should be prosecuted, if not would you like to share what other laws people can break???[/p][/quote]The Abortion Act 1967, as amended. Next?
The pass laws.
The laws in occupied countries 1939-1945.
Bart, most of us are capable of recognising the difference between Blair's cheap political show and laws. I'm sure you can too.
Oh and Museli-the point is that they spent £300,000 on this prosecution, which is a disproportionate sum, and all the personal abuse doesn't obscure that point .Apologists like you are not going to be able to justify spending all that cash. The cash was not given by decent donors for this purpose, as you know. And if you think that, for example, starving puppies in a dark shed (RSPCA core business) is so much more trivial than chasing a bloomin' fox that the RSPCA should only spend 2% of the sum of money prosecuting such a case than on prosecuting to embarrass Cameron, then frankly you're barking-see I can do personal abuse as well, and it's as fatuous as your personal abuse.Lord Palmerstone

Bartsimpson_uk wrote…

You all seem to forget,,,,,they BROKE the law and should be prosecuted, if not would you like to share what other laws people can break???

The Abortion Act 1967, as amended. Next? The pass laws. The laws in occupied countries 1939-1945. Bart, most of us are capable of recognising the difference between Blair's cheap political show and laws. I'm sure you can too. Oh and Museli-the point is that they spent £300,000 on this prosecution, which is a disproportionate sum, and all the personal abuse doesn't obscure that point .Apologists like you are not going to be able to justify spending all that cash. The cash was not given by decent donors for this purpose, as you know. And if you think that, for example, starving puppies in a dark shed (RSPCA core business) is so much more trivial than chasing a bloomin' fox that the RSPCA should only spend 2% of the sum of money prosecuting such a case than on prosecuting to embarrass Cameron, then frankly you're barking-see I can do personal abuse as well, and it's as fatuous as your personal abuse.

Score: 0

carfax cabby ox1 says...6:52pm Fri 28 Dec 12

Muesli, as you say the RSPCA had over 3,000 convictions, now if they were all at 300K a pop where is all that money coming from, my calculator has not enough numbers to calculate that figure. This was a politically motivated prosecution by a charity, that should now have it's charitable status revoked, and pay all relevant taxes in the UK.

Muesli, as you say the RSPCA had over 3,000 convictions, now if they were all at 300K a pop where is all that money coming from, my calculator has not enough numbers to calculate that figure. This was a politically motivated prosecution by a charity, that should now have it's charitable status revoked, and pay all relevant taxes in the UK.carfax cabby ox1

Muesli, as you say the RSPCA had over 3,000 convictions, now if they were all at 300K a pop where is all that money coming from, my calculator has not enough numbers to calculate that figure. This was a politically motivated prosecution by a charity, that should now have it's charitable status revoked, and pay all relevant taxes in the UK.

Score: 0

museli says...7:23am Sat 29 Dec 12

I agree it's an awful lot of money and can't really see why, all things being equal, it should cost more to prosecute a fox hunter than say a hare courser or puppy farmer. I suspect in this landmark case though the RSPCA thought it better to go over the top than to let these criminals use their money and influence to make the case mysteriously go away again like last time. The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron? You are in tin-foil hat territory there. If the RSPCA were to restrict their prosecutions to those cheaper cases where the suspect has no money or influence while letting the well healed offenders off - which seems to be what you are suggesting they should do - then I would have absolutely no respect for them.

I agree it's an awful lot of money and can't really see why, all things being equal, it should cost more to prosecute a fox hunter than say a hare courser or puppy farmer. I suspect in this landmark case though the RSPCA thought it better to go over the top than to let these criminals use their money and influence to make the case mysteriously go away again like last time. The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron? You are in tin-foil hat territory there.
If the RSPCA were to restrict their prosecutions to those cheaper cases where the suspect has no money or influence while letting the well healed offenders off - which seems to be what you are suggesting they should do - then I would have absolutely no respect for them.museli

I agree it's an awful lot of money and can't really see why, all things being equal, it should cost more to prosecute a fox hunter than say a hare courser or puppy farmer. I suspect in this landmark case though the RSPCA thought it better to go over the top than to let these criminals use their money and influence to make the case mysteriously go away again like last time. The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron? You are in tin-foil hat territory there. If the RSPCA were to restrict their prosecutions to those cheaper cases where the suspect has no money or influence while letting the well healed offenders off - which seems to be what you are suggesting they should do - then I would have absolutely no respect for them.

Score: 0

Lord Palmerstone says...9:19am Sat 29 Dec 12

museli wrote…

I agree it's an awful lot of money and can't really see why, all things being equal, it should cost more to prosecute a fox hunter than say a hare courser or puppy farmer. I suspect in this landmark case though the RSPCA thought it better to go over the top than to let these criminals use their money and influence to make the case mysteriously go away again like last time. The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron? You are in tin-foil hat territory there. If the RSPCA were to restrict their prosecutions to those cheaper cases where the suspect has no money or influence while letting the well healed offenders off - which seems to be what you are suggesting they should do - then I would have absolutely no respect for them.

"healed"What do you mean? Broughton is banged up now and the rest of his disgusting coven have not, as best I know , hurt anyone lately. The RSPCA don't have to have any meetings because it was the decision of the autocrat who heads this (now) pseudo-charity to throw all the donations away on the enforcement of Blair's political diktat. At least the whole debacle has damaged RSPCA considerably and one hopes that wills are now being altered to benefit real charities

[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote:
I agree it's an awful lot of money and can't really see why, all things being equal, it should cost more to prosecute a fox hunter than say a hare courser or puppy farmer. I suspect in this landmark case though the RSPCA thought it better to go over the top than to let these criminals use their money and influence to make the case mysteriously go away again like last time. The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron? You are in tin-foil hat territory there.
If the RSPCA were to restrict their prosecutions to those cheaper cases where the suspect has no money or influence while letting the well healed offenders off - which seems to be what you are suggesting they should do - then I would have absolutely no respect for them.[/p][/quote]"healed"What do you mean? Broughton is banged up now and the rest of his disgusting coven have not, as best I know , hurt anyone lately.
The RSPCA don't have to have any meetings because it was the decision of the autocrat who heads this (now) pseudo-charity to throw all the donations away on the enforcement of Blair's political diktat. At least the whole debacle has damaged RSPCA considerably and one hopes that wills are now being altered to benefit real charitiesLord Palmerstone

museli wrote…

I agree it's an awful lot of money and can't really see why, all things being equal, it should cost more to prosecute a fox hunter than say a hare courser or puppy farmer. I suspect in this landmark case though the RSPCA thought it better to go over the top than to let these criminals use their money and influence to make the case mysteriously go away again like last time. The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron? You are in tin-foil hat territory there. If the RSPCA were to restrict their prosecutions to those cheaper cases where the suspect has no money or influence while letting the well healed offenders off - which seems to be what you are suggesting they should do - then I would have absolutely no respect for them.

"healed"What do you mean? Broughton is banged up now and the rest of his disgusting coven have not, as best I know , hurt anyone lately. The RSPCA don't have to have any meetings because it was the decision of the autocrat who heads this (now) pseudo-charity to throw all the donations away on the enforcement of Blair's political diktat. At least the whole debacle has damaged RSPCA considerably and one hopes that wills are now being altered to benefit real charities

Score: 0

oopsispiltmygravy says...10:18am Sat 29 Dec 12

the reason why the RSPCA had to spend £320000 on prosecuting the heythrop Hunt was because the Crown Prosecution Service had decided not to - possibly because they were worried that it might cause political fallout for themselves. The RSPCA stepped in as a last resort to stop a particularily arrogant and cruel hunt form continuing to break the law. The Hunt would have been represented by the best lawyers available, hence the requirement to spend by the RSPCA on prosecuting 54 charges, each of which the hunt denied for months until the second day of the trial thus forcing the RSPCA to spend lots of money. The Hunt is the problem here....if they had stuck to the law, this money would not need to have been spent !!

the reason why the RSPCA had to spend £320000 on prosecuting the heythrop Hunt was because the Crown Prosecution Service had decided not to - possibly because they were worried that it might cause political fallout for themselves. The RSPCA stepped in as a last resort to stop a particularily arrogant and cruel hunt form continuing to break the law. The Hunt would have been represented by the best lawyers available, hence the requirement to spend by the RSPCA on prosecuting 54 charges, each of which the hunt denied for months until the second day of the trial thus forcing the RSPCA to spend lots of money. The Hunt is the problem here....if they had stuck to the law, this money would not need to have been spent !!oopsispiltmygravy

the reason why the RSPCA had to spend £320000 on prosecuting the heythrop Hunt was because the Crown Prosecution Service had decided not to - possibly because they were worried that it might cause political fallout for themselves. The RSPCA stepped in as a last resort to stop a particularily arrogant and cruel hunt form continuing to break the law. The Hunt would have been represented by the best lawyers available, hence the requirement to spend by the RSPCA on prosecuting 54 charges, each of which the hunt denied for months until the second day of the trial thus forcing the RSPCA to spend lots of money. The Hunt is the problem here....if they had stuck to the law, this money would not need to have been spent !!

Score: 0

A34North says...10:46am Sat 29 Dec 12

museli wrote…

I agree it's an awful lot of money and can't really see why, all things being equal, it should cost more to prosecute a fox hunter than say a hare courser or puppy farmer. I suspect in this landmark case though the RSPCA thought it better to go over the top than to let these criminals use their money and influence to make the case mysteriously go away again like last time. The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron? You are in tin-foil hat territory there. If the RSPCA were to restrict their prosecutions to those cheaper cases where the suspect has no money or influence while letting the well healed offenders off - which seems to be what you are suggesting they should do - then I would have absolutely no respect for them.

'The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron?' That, unfortunately, is where you lost the argument!

[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote:
I agree it's an awful lot of money and can't really see why, all things being equal, it should cost more to prosecute a fox hunter than say a hare courser or puppy farmer. I suspect in this landmark case though the RSPCA thought it better to go over the top than to let these criminals use their money and influence to make the case mysteriously go away again like last time. The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron? You are in tin-foil hat territory there.
If the RSPCA were to restrict their prosecutions to those cheaper cases where the suspect has no money or influence while letting the well healed offenders off - which seems to be what you are suggesting they should do - then I would have absolutely no respect for them.[/p][/quote]'The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron?'
That, unfortunately, is where you lost the argument!A34North

museli wrote…

I agree it's an awful lot of money and can't really see why, all things being equal, it should cost more to prosecute a fox hunter than say a hare courser or puppy farmer. I suspect in this landmark case though the RSPCA thought it better to go over the top than to let these criminals use their money and influence to make the case mysteriously go away again like last time. The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron? You are in tin-foil hat territory there. If the RSPCA were to restrict their prosecutions to those cheaper cases where the suspect has no money or influence while letting the well healed offenders off - which seems to be what you are suggesting they should do - then I would have absolutely no respect for them.

'The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron?' That, unfortunately, is where you lost the argument!

Score: 0

JanetJ says...11:36am Sat 29 Dec 12

xjohnx wrote…

I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes. Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes??? More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.

Or trapped or poisoned

[quote][p][bold]xjohnx[/bold] wrote:
I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes.
Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes???
More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.[/p][/quote]Or trapped or poisonedJanetJ

xjohnx wrote…

I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes. Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes??? More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.

Or trapped or poisoned

Score: 0

A34North says...1:03pm Sat 29 Dec 12

JanetJ wrote…

xjohnx wrote…

I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes. Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes??? More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.

Or trapped or poisoned

Yes the slow lingering death we turn a blind eye to.

[quote][p][bold]JanetJ[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]xjohnx[/bold] wrote:
I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes.
Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes???
More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.[/p][/quote]Or trapped or poisoned[/p][/quote]Yes the slow lingering death we turn a blind eye to.A34North

JanetJ wrote…

xjohnx wrote…

I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes. Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes??? More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.

Or trapped or poisoned

Yes the slow lingering death we turn a blind eye to.

Score: 0

museli says...3:23pm Sat 29 Dec 12

A34North wrote…

museli wrote…

I agree it's an awful lot of money and can't really see why, all things being equal, it should cost more to prosecute a fox hunter than say a hare courser or puppy farmer. I suspect in this landmark case though the RSPCA thought it better to go over the top than to let these criminals use their money and influence to make the case mysteriously go away again like last time. The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron? You are in tin-foil hat territory there. If the RSPCA were to restrict their prosecutions to those cheaper cases where the suspect has no money or influence while letting the well healed offenders off - which seems to be what you are suggesting they should do - then I would have absolutely no respect for them.

'The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron?' That, unfortunately, is where you lost the argument!

If you've got some evidence of this conspiracy being real then I'd really love to see it.

[quote][p][bold]A34North[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote:
I agree it's an awful lot of money and can't really see why, all things being equal, it should cost more to prosecute a fox hunter than say a hare courser or puppy farmer. I suspect in this landmark case though the RSPCA thought it better to go over the top than to let these criminals use their money and influence to make the case mysteriously go away again like last time. The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron? You are in tin-foil hat territory there.
If the RSPCA were to restrict their prosecutions to those cheaper cases where the suspect has no money or influence while letting the well healed offenders off - which seems to be what you are suggesting they should do - then I would have absolutely no respect for them.[/p][/quote]'The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron?'
That, unfortunately, is where you lost the argument![/p][/quote]If you've got some evidence of this conspiracy being real then I'd really love to see it.museli

A34North wrote…

museli wrote…

I agree it's an awful lot of money and can't really see why, all things being equal, it should cost more to prosecute a fox hunter than say a hare courser or puppy farmer. I suspect in this landmark case though the RSPCA thought it better to go over the top than to let these criminals use their money and influence to make the case mysteriously go away again like last time. The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron? You are in tin-foil hat territory there. If the RSPCA were to restrict their prosecutions to those cheaper cases where the suspect has no money or influence while letting the well healed offenders off - which seems to be what you are suggesting they should do - then I would have absolutely no respect for them.

'The idea that the RSPCA are part of some conspiracy to upset the Conservatives is silly. Do you and Palmerstone really believe they had some sort of meeting and agreed to spend loads of extra money just because it might embarrass Cameron?' That, unfortunately, is where you lost the argument!

If you've got some evidence of this conspiracy being real then I'd really love to see it.

Score: 0

museli says...3:26pm Sat 29 Dec 12

A34North wrote…

JanetJ wrote…

xjohnx wrote…

I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes. Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes??? More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.

Or trapped or poisoned

Yes the slow lingering death we turn a blind eye to.

Yes this sort of animal abuse is awful too - it doesn't in any way make being chased to exhaustion and ripped apart by dogs any more acceptable though.

[quote][p][bold]A34North[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]JanetJ[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]xjohnx[/bold] wrote:
I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes.
Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes???
More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.[/p][/quote]Or trapped or poisoned[/p][/quote]Yes the slow lingering death we turn a blind eye to.[/p][/quote]Yes this sort of animal abuse is awful too - it doesn't in any way make being chased to exhaustion and ripped apart by dogs any more acceptable though.museli

A34North wrote…

JanetJ wrote…

xjohnx wrote…

I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes. Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes??? More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.

Or trapped or poisoned

Yes the slow lingering death we turn a blind eye to.

Yes this sort of animal abuse is awful too - it doesn't in any way make being chased to exhaustion and ripped apart by dogs any more acceptable though.

Score: 0

A34North says...6:20pm Sat 29 Dec 12

museli wrote…

A34North wrote…

JanetJ wrote…

xjohnx wrote…

I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes. Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes??? More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.

Or trapped or poisoned

Yes the slow lingering death we turn a blind eye to.

Yes this sort of animal abuse is awful too - it doesn't in any way make being chased to exhaustion and ripped apart by dogs any more acceptable though.

So you would prefer for an animal to die a long suffering death from poison or gunshot wounds over days and possibly weeks as is now happening. As regards to evidence well, I am sure your conscience is at rest with the spend to bring this hunt to court. Funny they did not take on a hunt up north though wasn't it. As long as you are happy that's all that counts never mind the suffering animals the money was donated to help..

[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]A34North[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]JanetJ[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]xjohnx[/bold] wrote:
I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes.
Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes???
More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.[/p][/quote]Or trapped or poisoned[/p][/quote]Yes the slow lingering death we turn a blind eye to.[/p][/quote]Yes this sort of animal abuse is awful too - it doesn't in any way make being chased to exhaustion and ripped apart by dogs any more acceptable though.[/p][/quote]So you would prefer for an animal to die a long suffering death from poison or gunshot wounds over days and possibly weeks as is now happening. As regards to evidence well, I am sure your conscience is at rest with the spend to bring this hunt to court. Funny they did not take on a hunt up north though wasn't it. As long as you are happy that's all that counts never mind the suffering animals the money was donated to help..A34North

museli wrote…

A34North wrote…

JanetJ wrote…

xjohnx wrote…

I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes. Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes??? More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.

Or trapped or poisoned

Yes the slow lingering death we turn a blind eye to.

Yes this sort of animal abuse is awful too - it doesn't in any way make being chased to exhaustion and ripped apart by dogs any more acceptable though.

So you would prefer for an animal to die a long suffering death from poison or gunshot wounds over days and possibly weeks as is now happening. As regards to evidence well, I am sure your conscience is at rest with the spend to bring this hunt to court. Funny they did not take on a hunt up north though wasn't it. As long as you are happy that's all that counts never mind the suffering animals the money was donated to help..

Score: 0

museli says...6:58pm Sat 29 Dec 12

A34North wrote…

museli wrote…

A34North wrote…

JanetJ wrote…

xjohnx wrote…

I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes. Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes??? More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.

Or trapped or poisoned

Yes the slow lingering death we turn a blind eye to.

Yes this sort of animal abuse is awful too - it doesn't in any way make being chased to exhaustion and ripped apart by dogs any more acceptable though.

So you would prefer for an animal to die a long suffering death from poison or gunshot wounds over days and possibly weeks as is now happening. As regards to evidence well, I am sure your conscience is at rest with the spend to bring this hunt to court. Funny they did not take on a hunt up north though wasn't it. As long as you are happy that's all that counts never mind the suffering animals the money was donated to help..

Sorry? I'm at a total loss as to understanding how you could draw that conclusion from what I just posted. There's no point in arguing with the likes of you though - you're far to busy being right for truth or logic to get a look in.

[quote][p][bold]A34North[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]A34North[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]JanetJ[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]xjohnx[/bold] wrote:
I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes.
Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes???
More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.[/p][/quote]Or trapped or poisoned[/p][/quote]Yes the slow lingering death we turn a blind eye to.[/p][/quote]Yes this sort of animal abuse is awful too - it doesn't in any way make being chased to exhaustion and ripped apart by dogs any more acceptable though.[/p][/quote]So you would prefer for an animal to die a long suffering death from poison or gunshot wounds over days and possibly weeks as is now happening. As regards to evidence well, I am sure your conscience is at rest with the spend to bring this hunt to court. Funny they did not take on a hunt up north though wasn't it. As long as you are happy that's all that counts never mind the suffering animals the money was donated to help..[/p][/quote]Sorry? I'm at a total loss as to understanding how you could draw that conclusion from what I just posted. There's no point in arguing with the likes of you though - you're far to busy being right for truth or logic to get a look in.museli

A34North wrote…

museli wrote…

A34North wrote…

JanetJ wrote…

xjohnx wrote…

I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes. Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes??? More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.

Or trapped or poisoned

Yes the slow lingering death we turn a blind eye to.

Yes this sort of animal abuse is awful too - it doesn't in any way make being chased to exhaustion and ripped apart by dogs any more acceptable though.

So you would prefer for an animal to die a long suffering death from poison or gunshot wounds over days and possibly weeks as is now happening. As regards to evidence well, I am sure your conscience is at rest with the spend to bring this hunt to court. Funny they did not take on a hunt up north though wasn't it. As long as you are happy that's all that counts never mind the suffering animals the money was donated to help..

Sorry? I'm at a total loss as to understanding how you could draw that conclusion from what I just posted. There's no point in arguing with the likes of you though - you're far to busy being right for truth or logic to get a look in.

Score: 0

Lord Palmerstone says...10:04am Sun 30 Dec 12

I know that there is no obligation to read what I write but don't keep banging on about a "conspiracy". No one needed to agree anything . The leftist former PR man who is Chief Exec of RSPCA and whose name I can't be a*sed to look up did it off his own bat because of his particular world view. Fine to have a world view, but to use 300K of donated funds to express it.....And the function of the CPS is to prosecute real offending. It doesn't always get it right and I'm one of its sternest critics. But if it turned this one down it was right. No part of its function to pander to the little vote winning joke Acts of Parliament of Blair. It is supposed to prosecute in the public interest, not to appease single issue fanatics like Muesli & cohort.

I know that there is no obligation to read what I write but don't keep banging on about a "conspiracy". No one needed to agree anything . The leftist former PR man who is Chief Exec of RSPCA and whose name I can't be a*sed to look up did it off his own bat because of his particular world view. Fine to have a world view, but to use 300K of donated funds to express it.....And the function of the CPS is to prosecute real offending. It doesn't always get it right and I'm one of its sternest critics. But if it turned this one down it was right. No part of its function to pander to the little vote winning joke Acts of Parliament of Blair. It is supposed to prosecute in the public interest, not to appease single issue fanatics like Muesli & cohort.Lord Palmerstone

I know that there is no obligation to read what I write but don't keep banging on about a "conspiracy". No one needed to agree anything . The leftist former PR man who is Chief Exec of RSPCA and whose name I can't be a*sed to look up did it off his own bat because of his particular world view. Fine to have a world view, but to use 300K of donated funds to express it.....And the function of the CPS is to prosecute real offending. It doesn't always get it right and I'm one of its sternest critics. But if it turned this one down it was right. No part of its function to pander to the little vote winning joke Acts of Parliament of Blair. It is supposed to prosecute in the public interest, not to appease single issue fanatics like Muesli & cohort.

Score: 0

museli says...11:00am Sun 30 Dec 12

Lord Palmerstone wrote…

I know that there is no obligation to read what I write but don't keep banging on about a "conspiracy". No one needed to agree anything . The leftist former PR man who is Chief Exec of RSPCA and whose name I can't be a*sed to look up did it off his own bat because of his particular world view. Fine to have a world view, but to use 300K of donated funds to express it.....And the function of the CPS is to prosecute real offending. It doesn't always get it right and I'm one of its sternest critics. But if it turned this one down it was right. No part of its function to pander to the little vote winning joke Acts of Parliament of Blair. It is supposed to prosecute in the public interest, not to appease single issue fanatics like Muesli & cohort.

I think you'll find Gavin Grant is a long term Lib Dem and close supporter of Clegg.

[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote:
I know that there is no obligation to read what I write but don't keep banging on about a "conspiracy". No one needed to agree anything . The leftist former PR man who is Chief Exec of RSPCA and whose name I can't be a*sed to look up did it off his own bat because of his particular world view. Fine to have a world view, but to use 300K of donated funds to express it.....And the function of the CPS is to prosecute real offending. It doesn't always get it right and I'm one of its sternest critics. But if it turned this one down it was right. No part of its function to pander to the little vote winning joke Acts of Parliament of Blair. It is supposed to prosecute in the public interest, not to appease single issue fanatics like Muesli & cohort.[/p][/quote]I think you'll find Gavin Grant is a long term Lib Dem and close supporter of Clegg.museli

Lord Palmerstone wrote…

I know that there is no obligation to read what I write but don't keep banging on about a "conspiracy". No one needed to agree anything . The leftist former PR man who is Chief Exec of RSPCA and whose name I can't be a*sed to look up did it off his own bat because of his particular world view. Fine to have a world view, but to use 300K of donated funds to express it.....And the function of the CPS is to prosecute real offending. It doesn't always get it right and I'm one of its sternest critics. But if it turned this one down it was right. No part of its function to pander to the little vote winning joke Acts of Parliament of Blair. It is supposed to prosecute in the public interest, not to appease single issue fanatics like Muesli & cohort.

I think you'll find Gavin Grant is a long term Lib Dem and close supporter of Clegg.

Score: 0

A34North says...11:05am Sun 30 Dec 12

museli wrote…

A34North wrote…

museli wrote…

A34North wrote…

JanetJ wrote…

xjohnx wrote…

I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes. Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes??? More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.

Or trapped or poisoned

Yes the slow lingering death we turn a blind eye to.

Yes this sort of animal abuse is awful too - it doesn't in any way make being chased to exhaustion and ripped apart by dogs any more acceptable though.

So you would prefer for an animal to die a long suffering death from poison or gunshot wounds over days and possibly weeks as is now happening. As regards to evidence well, I am sure your conscience is at rest with the spend to bring this hunt to court. Funny they did not take on a hunt up north though wasn't it. As long as you are happy that's all that counts never mind the suffering animals the money was donated to help..

Sorry? I'm at a total loss as to understanding how you could draw that conclusion from what I just posted. There's no point in arguing with the likes of you though - you're far to busy being right for truth or logic to get a look in.

Then I should read your posts again museli. Oh, you are not arguing with me museli, I have far more pressing things to do than get involved with such a knowledgeable and worldly wise person.

[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]A34North[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]A34North[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]JanetJ[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]xjohnx[/bold] wrote:
I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes.
Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes???
More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.[/p][/quote]Or trapped or poisoned[/p][/quote]Yes the slow lingering death we turn a blind eye to.[/p][/quote]Yes this sort of animal abuse is awful too - it doesn't in any way make being chased to exhaustion and ripped apart by dogs any more acceptable though.[/p][/quote]So you would prefer for an animal to die a long suffering death from poison or gunshot wounds over days and possibly weeks as is now happening. As regards to evidence well, I am sure your conscience is at rest with the spend to bring this hunt to court. Funny they did not take on a hunt up north though wasn't it. As long as you are happy that's all that counts never mind the suffering animals the money was donated to help..[/p][/quote]Sorry? I'm at a total loss as to understanding how you could draw that conclusion from what I just posted. There's no point in arguing with the likes of you though - you're far to busy being right for truth or logic to get a look in.[/p][/quote]Then I should read your posts again museli. Oh, you are not arguing with me museli, I have far more pressing things to do than get involved with such a knowledgeable and worldly wise person.A34North

museli wrote…

A34North wrote…

museli wrote…

A34North wrote…

JanetJ wrote…

xjohnx wrote…

I get the distinct impression the real reason for anti hunt protests is resentment of the hunters pleasure in hunting, rather than concern for a very small number of deadf foxes. Why doesn't anybody protest against shooting foxes??? More foxes are shot nowdays than were ever killed by hunting with hounds.

Or trapped or poisoned

Yes the slow lingering death we turn a blind eye to.

Yes this sort of animal abuse is awful too - it doesn't in any way make being chased to exhaustion and ripped apart by dogs any more acceptable though.

So you would prefer for an animal to die a long suffering death from poison or gunshot wounds over days and possibly weeks as is now happening. As regards to evidence well, I am sure your conscience is at rest with the spend to bring this hunt to court. Funny they did not take on a hunt up north though wasn't it. As long as you are happy that's all that counts never mind the suffering animals the money was donated to help..

Sorry? I'm at a total loss as to understanding how you could draw that conclusion from what I just posted. There's no point in arguing with the likes of you though - you're far to busy being right for truth or logic to get a look in.

Then I should read your posts again museli. Oh, you are not arguing with me museli, I have far more pressing things to do than get involved with such a knowledgeable and worldly wise person.

Score: 0

Lord Palmerstone says...1:58pm Sun 30 Dec 12

Is not the (Liberal) Social Democrat Party a leftist party? I recall that one of their leading lights was very influential in the destruction of grammar schools, as extreme left a policy as you'd find anywhere...was she not?

Is not the (Liberal) Social Democrat Party a leftist party? I recall that one of their leading lights was very influential in the destruction of grammar schools, as extreme left a policy as you'd find anywhere...was she not?Lord Palmerstone

Is not the (Liberal) Social Democrat Party a leftist party? I recall that one of their leading lights was very influential in the destruction of grammar schools, as extreme left a policy as you'd find anywhere...was she not?

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standardards Organisations's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a compaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here